Mailing surveys to low-income populations is often avoided because of concern about low response rates.
In this study, the authors used a mailed survey of a low-income population to test whether $1.00 or $2.00 cash-response incentives were worth the expense and whether 2-day priority mail ($2.90 postage) would yield a sufficiently higher response rate than certified mail ($1.52 postage) to justify its cost.
In 1994,2,243 randomly selected families in subsidized health care programs in Pierce County, Washington, were randomly sent no incentive, $1.00, or $2.00 in the first of three mailings.
For the third mailing, nonrespondents were randomly assigned to receive either certified or 2-day priority mail.
After 4 weeks, the response rates were 36.7%, 48.1%, and 50.3% for the no-incentive, $1.00, and $2.00 groups, respectively.
After three mailings, the cost per response was the lowest for the group that received $1.00.
The response rate for the certified mailing (28.1%) was significantly higher than the rate for the more expensive priority mailing (21.7%). No incentive-related bias was detected.
The authors concluded that the most efficient protocol for this low-income population was to use a $1.00 incentive in the first mailing and a certified third mailing.
Mots-clés Pascal : Etats Unis, Amérique du Nord, Amérique, Epidémiologie, Homme, Statut socioéconomique, Pauvreté, Surveillance sanitaire, Méthodologie, Question réponse, Collecte donnée, Enquête par correspondance, Analyse coût
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : United States, North America, America, Epidemiology, Human, Socioeconomic status, Poverty, Sanitary surveillance, Methodology, Question answering, Data gathering, Mail inquiry, Cost analysis
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 99-0292046
Code Inist : 002B30A01A1. Création : 16/11/1999.